Justice Clarence Thomas Lashes Out in New Memoir

I’m not sure if this should be in Popular Media or Secular News. Please move this thread if it doesn’t belong here! :slight_smile:

This should be a very interesting book.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas settles scores in an angry and remarkably vivid forthcoming memoir, scathingly condemning the media, the Democratic senators who opposed his nomination and the “mob” of liberal elites and activist groups who he said desecrated his life.

“My Grandfather’s Son,” for which Thomas has received a reported $1.5 million and is scheduled to go on sale Monday, is a 289-page memoir of his life in rural Georgia and his rise to the Supreme Court. His book ends with the day he was sworn in, and contains only fleeting mentions of his time on the bench.

Thomas lovingly describes the iron-willed grandfather who raised him after his own father abandoned him at birth; critically admires the Catholic church that provided him an education but was not as “adamant about ending racism then as it is about ending abortion now;” and gives a detailed description of the confirmation hearings that electrified the nation in 1991 and the sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill that he said destroyed his reputation.

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801634.html?nav=rss_email/components

Politically, I am far away from this coming storm. I tend to stay in the middle and this book appears to be quite partisan. But he certainly has a unique perspective and I think it will be interesting to read what he has to say.

I’m definitely buying the book…I want to hear what he has to say…

I think he errs in

Thomas lovingly describes the iron-willed grandfather who raised him after his own father abandoned him at birth; critically admires the Catholic church that provided him an education but was not as "adamant about ending racism then as it is about ending abortion now;

The Church excommunicated pro-segragation politicians; it has not done the same for pro-ablortion politicians.

When & where were segregationists were ever excommunicated? If any were I’m willing to bet it wasn’t for being racist – probably for remarriage after divorce or some such. That’s what happened here in NY with our ex-Gov Hugh Carey. He was pro-choice his whole political career but not excluded from the sacraments until his remarriage.

Actually, a total of three people were excommunicated by Abp. Rummel of New Orleans when I was a child AND the excommunication was broadcast live from the steps of the Chancery on TV. I saw it with my own two eyes. This would have been around 1961 - 1962.

Abp. Rummel had decreed that the Catholic schools of New Orleans would be desegregated. There were protest marches - one of which went to the Chancery. Abp. Rummel came out of the Chancery and confronted two women (leaders of the protest). He gave them the chance to recant. They refused. He went back into the Chancery, vested, and came back out and excommunicated them on the spot - bell, book, and candle according to the rite in Latin at the time.

In a separate action, he excommunicated Leander Perez, who was the parish (county) president of Plaquemines Parish which lies to the south of New Orleans. Perez was a noted segregationist/racist of the time.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Rummel

Thank you - I recalled the event, but didn’t have the details. - Joe

I would not give Thomas a dime of my money, so perhaps I’ll read it from the library. He has a lot of nerve saying that Anita Hill ruined his reputation. He is sitting on the US Supreme Court in spite of his past, so boo hoo for him.

She lost her career as a well-respected law professor after merely cooperating with the FBI during the background check and later complying with a subpoena from the Senate. God help anyone who tells the truth under oath when it is not popular. I hope that I’m never called as a witness against someone with powerful friends who can ruin me and then play the victim. Oh, yeah and write a book about it to make even more money off of their “ruined” reputation.

I googled Anita Hill and I couldn’t find anything saying she lost a career as a Law Professor. She is still a Law Professor, teaching at Brandies University. She worked with Clarence Thomas at the EEOC ( a gov. watchdog group) from 1981-1983. In 1983 she left the EEOC to pursue at teaching career, which is what she is doing now. If I remember correctly, she had no credible witnesses and he had credible witnesses that knew the both of them. Beside the two of them, only God knows what really happened, but in the end apparently he was more credible. You are of the opinion obviously that he was guilty, I am of the opinion that she was used by those who opposed the nomination of Clarence Thomas. I’ll probably read the book sometime, but right now I have a few others first on my “to read” list.

Perhaps it would be interesting to note that former Justice Thurgood Marshall said at the time of the Thomas hearings that Judge Thomas was treated most unfairly. The whole thing was about abortion, the liberals were scared to death to have a justice who would not find abortion in the constitution. And to say that Anita Hill told the truth under oath is suspect. There were many around at the time, in positions of power, who doubted her story. Me thinks your bias is a bit far-fetched.

Where and when did Anita Hill lose her professorship? She was on the circuit just last year making $ as a professor of 2 departments including women’s studies. Well, if you do not like Clarence Thomas then I bet you will not attempt to get a job working for him as Ms Thomas has in the past.

I’ve changed my mind. After listening to at least an hour & a half interview on Rush Limbaugh yesterday, I have moved Clarence Thomas’s book to the top of my “to read” list:thumbsup: . His story is very interesting & I’m sure also inspirational. You can read the transcript of the interview on www.rushlimbaugh.com.

She was a law professor at the U. of Oklahoma at the time of the hearings which is in the midst of a very conservative state. (Nothing wrong with that since that is where I’m from.) The media hounded her and the powers that be hounded her until she left the state. My very conservative parents followed the news closely and even they thought she got a raw deal considering the fact that she did not have a choice about answering the subpoena.

I did not start out with a bias for either person since I had no facts. I personally know another black law professor (at the time of the hearings) who worked with Hill and Thomas at EEOC and witnessed some of the disputed incidents. He also had to give a statement to the FBI which corroborated Ms. Hill, but he was not subpoenaed to testify. This is a very credible man who had nothing to gain by telling the FBI what Thomas did and everything to lose. I found it bizarre at the time that he was not subpoenaed given the fact that numerous women were called from the support staff to testify that they had seen nothing.

He told me personally at that time when I questioned why he had not gone to DC that Ms. Hill advised him not to volunteer to testify. She felt that this nomination was going to be pushed through and anyone in the way would be steamrolled.

I watched all of the testimony on TV while I was in law school. Based in part upon my experience in reading people during police interrogations, I found some disturbing signs while viewing the testimony that Thomas appeared to be covering up. I confirmed my suspicion by asking the only other person who was in the room at least part of the time, “Did he do it?” The response, “yes.” My next question, “Are you going to testify and back her up?” His answer, “She told me there are too few black law professors for another one of us to go down. Don’t come.”

I believe that Ms. Hill was used as a pawn by both sides. She provided a supposedly confidential statement that was leaked for political reasons. I’ve had to provide such background statements in the past and I would be appalled if one was leaked. She had no good reason to make up such a story so long after the fact when it would be obviously hard to prove. She was not going to be going for money or promotion based on such allegations after leaving government service and having so many years pass. She had already sucked it up for long enough to move up and out of a bad situation. I know many other women who have done the same rather than make a spectacle out of themselves.

You can read my reason for my opinion, but I don’t appreciate having it called a “bias” just because I don’t like someone that you do like. I believe that with the passage of time and use of the Freedom of Information Act that more of the behind the scenes nonsense and more of the facts will come to light regarding his nomination. I’m pro-life and black and I still think that there were many better qualified jurists on the federal bench who should have received a nomination before Thomas. The reports from the ABA showed a long list of better qualified white judges and a few better qualifed black judges who were just not as clearly conservative.

I do agree that a large part of the confirmation fight was because liberals thought that Thomas would be pro-life. It does not mean that he was a perfect individual prior to his nomination. Based on the totality of the information available to me I don’t believe he was on his best behavior while at EEOC. Many otherwise “great” and powerful leaders have had some serious character flaws when it comes to women and behaving appropriately behind closed doors.

You are entitled to read his book and nominate him for citizen of the decade if you like and I won’t try to demean your opinion by calling you biased.

She took a polygraph and passed - he refused - enough said.

And in light of the history of republican dirt being found out almost every other day - almost as much as we were practically hearing about Priest scandals on a semi daily basis - I think vindicates Ms Hill as well. I have zero respect for this clown sitting on the bench.

Justice Thomas, whom I adore, is not a conservative per se. He is actually a strict constitutional constructionalist, and confounds people at times who think only in terms of conservative and liberal.

That does not mean anything. Polygraphs aren’t admissible in courts because they don’t tend to be reliable.

Polygraphs are not allowed into evidence for a reason; they are not conclusive. In security work they are used only to develop leads; they must be corroborated by admissable evidence.

Ms. Hill has responded in a professional manner in an op ed piece published October 2nd to the smears written about her by Thomas in his new book. I’m glad that she is not taking this attack by a sitting Supreme Court justice without comment. She referenced what I wrote earlier about there being witnesses who could corroborate her testimony. She says that their info came to light after the hearings. Of course if someone only wants to believe the party line about Thomas (or any other famous person) then they won’t bother to ready anything to the contrary regardless.

nytimes.com/2007/10/02/opinion/02hill.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

It is interesting that Anita Hill is allowed to attack Clarence Thomas but he is criticized for defending himself. Even if what she claimed was true in amount to nothing more than boorish behavior-not even close to the escapades of Bill Clinton -a man the left holds near and dear. So until we see similar criticisms of Clinton’s sexual-harassments please excuse us if we find it hard to be sorry for Anita.

Here’s my two-cents, based on reading and observing testimonies on both side: Judge Thomas was inappropriate, I believe Anita Hill. That is, Judge Thomas used to have a pornography problem and it bore “fruit” in the form of inappropriate comments made to Ms. Hill (and, perhaps, others). Of course, Thomas’s opponents used Ms. Hill, but that was not what motivated her. I think she told the truth because she was sworn to tell the truth. You know, one way the Lord disciplines his “sons” (before he receives them) is to “expose” them. I think he “exposed” Thomas during the nomination hearings.

I was particularly offended when Sen. Oren Hatch (or whatever Senator it was) described Ms. Hill as “…a little nutty, a little slutty.” Don’t strike the witness, Senator.

Sincerely, Teresa

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.